|
Abortion
Abortion should be a question of when life begins. If it is anything else, then we are arguing about whether life has intrinsic value or not. We can argue that if you wish, but I am assuming that you do believe that human life does have intrinsic value, since unlike your presidential candidate, you don't seem to support infanticide.
So let us go back to our original question...when does life begin?
Science has determined that if something is growing it is therefore living. Now this may seem like an overly simplistic definition, but when you think about it, it makes sense. Now there are scientists who believe that in order to make the cut the criteria should be more strenuous, but what is interesting is that even with a more selective criteria, the human fetus at the point of conception meets these requirements.
the next question would be, what defines "human life". We define the species according to DNA. At the point of conception you possess all of the DNA from an outside source that you ever will.
So therefore, without pulling on one morale argument we have established quite adequately that at the point of conception, what we have is "Human Life".
Do we really need to debate the one remaining question...the question of innocence, or are you willing to concede that an infant is not guilty of a crime?
If so, then we have only one thing left to do...accurately describe the policy you support...
"Abortion is the systematic destruction of defenseless, innocent human life"
If you do not accept this definition, I am willing to hear your counter argument.
if you do accept it, and are comfortable with continuing to support it, then we must now argue concerning the belief in the intrinsic value of human life.
What shall it be.
|